HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9965 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 25.08.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had moved an application before the respondent no.3 which has been rejected without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. It is also urged that the correction which is sought is only to indicate the respective shares of the co-tenure holders and the said application has been rejected without due application of mind. 5. Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of the written instructions dated 15.10.2025 filed under the signatures of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Raebareli, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record indicates that the petitioner himself has instituted a suit for division of land holding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 23.06.2025 wherein several dates have been fixed and lastly Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adesh Srivastava, Abhinav Pankaj Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Revenue Secy., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) the matter was listed on 17.10.2025. 5. It is further urged that once the petitioner had filed a suit for division of his land holding which is a substantive suit, the application which has been rejected cannot have an impact which is only a summary proceedings. 7. It is also urged that against the impugned order the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing the revision if at all and for both the reasons as aforesaid, the petition may not be entertained. 8. Having considered the aforesaid and from the perusal of the material on record admittedly the petitioner has not disclosed that he has already filed a suit for division of land holding. In any case once the petitioner has already taken recourse to filing a suit under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which needless to say partake the nature of regular suit where the substantive rights of the parties are determined only thereafter the shares can be indicated. 9. Be that as it may, since the suit is pending and in case if the petitioner is aggrieved from the impugned order he has a statutory remedy for both the reasons then this Court is not inclined to entertain the petitioner which is accordingly dismissed. 10. It is made clear that any observations made herein may not come in the way of the petitioner in case if he seeks to invoke this remedy as may be available to him. October 16, 2025 ank WRIC No. 9965 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench